Advertisement

How Long It Takes for an Ordinary Node with an Ordinary ID to Output?

  • Laurent FeuilloleyEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10641)

Abstract

In the context of distributed synchronous computing, processors perform in rounds, and the time complexity of a distributed algorithm is classically defined as the number of rounds before all computing nodes have output. Hence, this complexity measure captures the running time of the slowest node(s). In this paper, we are interested in the running time of the ordinary nodes, to be compared with the running time of the slowest nodes. The node-averaged time-complexity of a distributed algorithm on a given instance is defined as the average, taken over every node of the instance, of the number of rounds before that node output. We compare the node-averaged time-complexity with the classical one in the standard \(\mathsf {LOCAL}\) model for distributed network computing. We show that there can be an exponential gap between the node-averaged time-complexity and the classical time-complexity, as witnessed by, e.g., leader election. Our first main result is a positive one, stating that, in fact, the two time-complexities behave the same for a large class of problems on very sparse graphs. In particular, we show that, for \(\mathsf {LCL}\) problems on cycles, the node-averaged time complexity is of the same order of magnitude as the “slowest node” time-complexity. In addition, in the \(\mathsf {LOCAL}\) model, the time-complexity is computed as a worst case over all possible identity assignments to the nodes of the network. In this paper, we also investigate the ID-averaged time-complexity, when the number of rounds is averaged over all possible identity assignments of size \(O(\log n)\). Our second main result is that the ID-averaged time-complexity is essentially the same as the expected time-complexity of randomized algorithms (where the expectation is taken over all possible random bits used by the nodes, and the number of rounds is measured for the worst-case identity assignment). Finally, we study the node-averaged ID-averaged time-complexity. We show that 3-colouring the n-node ring requires \(\varTheta (\log ^*n)\) rounds if the number of rounds is averaged over the nodes, or if the number of rounds is averaged over the identity assignments. In contrast, we show that 3-colouring the ring requires only O(1) rounds if the number of rounds is averaged over the nodes, and over the identity assignments.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Juho Hirvonen, Tuomo Lempiäinen and Jukka Suomela for fruitful discussions, and Pierre Fraigniaud for both discussions, and help for the writing. I thank the reviewers for helpful comments, and Mohsen Ghaffari for pointing out that randomized node-averaged complexity could be considered.

References

  1. 1.
    Alon, N., Babai, L., Itai, A.: A fast and simple randomized parallel algorithm for the maximal independent set problem. J. Algorithms 7(4), 567–583 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Attiya, H., Welch, J.: Distributed Computing: Fundamentals, Simulations, and Advanced Topics. Wiley, Hoboken (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barenboim, L., Elkin, M.: Sublogarithmic distributed MIS algorithm for sparse graphs using Nash-Williams decomposition. Distrib. Comput. 22(5–6), 363–379 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00446-009-0088-2 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brandt, S., Fischer, O., Hirvonen, J., Keller, B., Lempiäinen, T., Rybicki, J., Suomela, J., Uitto, J.: A lower bound for the distributed lovász local lemma. In: Proceedings of the 48th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2016, Cambridge, MA, USA, June 18–21, 2016, pp. 479–488 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2897518.2897570
  5. 5.
    Brandt, S., Hirvonen, J., Korhonen, J.H., Lempiäinen, T., Östergård, P.R.J., Purcell, C., Rybicki, J., Suomela, J., Uznanski, P.: LCL problems on grids. CoRR, abs/1702.05456 (2017). arXiv:1702.05456
  6. 6.
    Chang, Y.J., Kopelowitz, T., Pettie, S.: An exponential separation between randomized and deterministic complexity in the local model. In: IEEE 57th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2016, 9–11 October 2016, Hyatt Regency, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA, pp. 615–624 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2016.72
  7. 7.
    Cole, R., Vishkin, U.: Deterministic coin tossing with applications to optimal parallel list ranking. Inf. Control 70(1), 32–53 (1986).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(86)80023-7 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feuilloley, L.: Brief announcement: average complexity for the LOCAL model. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC 2015, Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain, July 21–23, 2015, pp. 335–337 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2767386.2767446
  9. 9.
    Feuilloley, L., Fraigniaud, P.: Survey of distributed decision. Bull. EATCS 119 (2016). EATCS: The Distributed Computing Column by Stefan Schmid
  10. 10.
    Fraigniaud, P., Korman, A., Peleg, D.: Towards a complexity theory for local distributed computing. J. ACM 60(5), 35 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2499228 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gamarnik, D., Sudan, M.: Limits of local algorithms over sparse random graphs. In: Proceedings of Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, ITCS’14, Princeton, NJ, USA, January 12–14, 2014, pp. 369–376 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2554797.2554831
  12. 12.
    Ghaffari, M.: An improved distributed algorithm for maximal independent set. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2016, Arlington, VA, USA, January 10–12, 2016, pp. 270–277 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611974331.ch20
  13. 13.
    Goldreich, O.: Introduction to testing graph properties. In: Goldreich, O. (ed.) Property Testing - Current Research and Surveys. LNCS, vol. 6390, pp. 105–141. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16367-8_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harris, D.G., Schneider, J., Su, H.H.: Distributed \((\Delta +1)\)-coloring in sublogarithmic rounds. In: Proceedings of the 48th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2016, Cambridge, MA, USA, June 18–21, 2016, pp. 465–478 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2897518.2897533
  15. 15.
    Korman, A., Sereni, J.-S., Viennot, L.: Toward more localized local algorithms: removing assumptions concerning global knowledge. Distrib. Comput. 26(5–6), 289–308 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00446-012-0174-8 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Linial, N.: Locality in distributed graph algorithms. SIAM J. Comput. 21(1), 193–201 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luby, M.: A simple parallel algorithm for the maximal independent set problem. SIAM J. Comput. 15(4), 1036–1053 (1986).  https://doi.org/10.1137/0215074 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lynch, N.A.: Distributed Algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Musto, T.: Knowledge of degree bounds in local algorithms. Master’s thesis, University of Helsinki (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Naor, M.: A lower bound on probabilistic algorithms for distributive ring coloring. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 4(3), 409–412 (1991).  https://doi.org/10.1137/0404036 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Naor, M., Stockmeyer, L.J.: What can be computed locally? SIAM J. Comput. 24(6), 1259–1277 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539793254571 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peleg, D.: Distributed Computing: A Locality-Sensitive Approach. SIAM, Philadelphia (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pettie, S., Ramachandran, V.: Minimizing randomness in minimum spanning tree, parallel connectivity, and set maxima algorithms. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, January 6–8, 2002, San Francisco, CA, USA., pp. 713–722 (2002). acm:545381.545477
  24. 24.
    Santoro, N.: Design and Analysis of Distributed Algorithms, vol. 56. Wiley, Hoboken (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sloane, N.J.A.: The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. A000788
  26. 26.
    Yao, A.C.C.: Probabilistic computations: toward a unified measure of complexity (extended abstract). In: 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, 31 October - 1 November 1977, pp. 222–227 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1977.24

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut de Recherche en Informatique Fondamentale (IRIF)CNRS and University Paris DiderotParisFrance

Personalised recommendations